Bloomberg interview with Abhisit: 'It's time for reform. Why can't the govt accept that'

[rixalex]

A viable post, yes.

I'd add that if Amsterdam is being effective in his arguments concerning Abhisit, it would be because the arguments have traction among the global elites in government power and the monied corporate investor world. The global elites know the story of YS, TS, AV and all the rest of 'em.

Further, murky Mark was installed in 2008 by a "silent coup," supported and executed by the same people who presently back Suthep, yet AV still couldn't covert the gift the elites gave him at the polls in 2011. Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

Abhisit's new, the rest of his life problem is the age old problem, self-inflicted, that when one is up, you're up, and that when one is down, he's down. Which of course means that, yes, when you're up you can fall but one doesn't necessarily fall. But when you're down, it's because people have lost confidence in the person, lost trust, lost any connection to you they once may have had. The damage thus is personally and professionally catastrophic.

To the global community, AV is down and given the total picture of recent years to the present, AV is also out, which is where he's going to stay, because AV's future excludes legitimate elections and democracy. This is true In Thailand too in respect of the vast majority of Thais, the Thailand political center middle occupied by the democratic mass of the Thai people.

Abhisit has put himself into a political body bag.

You paint an extremely dire picture for Mr Abhisit. The thing is with Thai politics, is that it is full of odious individuals, whose polticial careers you really would have thought would have been over years and years ago. Somehow, they manage to stick around. The unflushables who simply refuse to go away. Take Chalerm. Is there anyone who actually likes this man? I really mean, anyone? I have yet to find one. If a man like Chalerm can succeed against the odds of being such a despicable human being, literally anyone can.

[lostmebike]

Proof please!

.

image.jpg.

'Proof' seems to have become the latest obsession-word for the tin foil hat brigade. This follows previous favourites like 'caretaker', 'constitutional' and '500 baht'. Always a sure sign that they don't have a good argument.

Another sign their arguments are fading is when they result to derogatory comments.

[Publicus]

A viable post, yes.

I'd add that if Amsterdam is being effective in his arguments concerning Abhisit, it would be because the arguments have traction among the global elites in government power and the monied corporate investor world. The global elites know the story of YS, TS, AV and all the rest of 'em.

Further, murky Mark was installed in 2008 by a "silent coup," supported and executed by the same people who presently back Suthep, yet AV still couldn't covert the gift the elites gave him at the polls in 2011. Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

Abhisit's new, the rest of his life problem is the age old problem, self-inflicted, that when one is up, you're up, and that when one is down, he's down. Which of course means that, yes, when you're up you can fall but one doesn't necessarily fall. But when you're down, it's because people have lost confidence in the person, lost trust, lost any connection to you they once may have had. The damage thus is personally and professionally catastrophic.

To the global community, AV is down and given the total picture of recent years to the present, AV is also out, which is where he's going to stay, because AV's future excludes legitimate elections and democracy. This is true In Thailand too in respect of the vast majority of Thais, the Thailand political center middle occupied by the democratic mass of the Thai people.

Abhisit has put himself into a political body bag.

You paint an extremely dire picture for Mr Abhisit. The thing is with Thai politics, is that it is full of odious individuals, whose polticial careers you really would have thought would have been over years and years ago. Somehow, they manage to stick around. The unflushables who simply refuse to go away. Take Chalerm. Is there anyone who actually likes this man? I really mean, anyone? I have yet to find one. If a man like Chalerm can succeed against the odds of being such a despicable human being, literally anyone can.

Yes about Thailand, but AV is seriously down and out in unprecedented ways - failing to support, defend, promote democracy.

And my central point is that AV is on Bloomberg TV and likely is in the early stages of a media campaign because it's world opinion that he's lost, that has turned against him and done it for good.

[Alwyn]

It's time for reform why can't the govrnment accept that... Says the man who wants to reform the reforms he made when in government....

"What have I done wrong? I respect the law. I respect the Constitution. I am exercising my rights." err... I know innocent until proven guilty but.. murder?

Question! Do you actually think that Abhisit is guilty of murder? As in he told the troops to shoot to kill!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

[icommunity]

As usual, he is lying, twisting and distorting.

1. Dissolving the house was demanded by him and when that happened, he boycotted it.

2. Reform initiatives were called by PM YS long before the house dissolved. The dem boycotted it and went round the country criticizing the government's initiatives. What had they come out with for reform? They cannot even accept the reforming of their own party.

3. Where are the protesters now. There was no crackdown that caused them to go home - unlike the 2010.

4. Free and fair election - I think it is the job of EC.

5. The dem had never come out to condemn the criminal activities of blocking election registration centres, blocking the distribution of ballot boxes and papers, the use of physical violence to block voters from voting and threats issued by its PDRC/PCAD to block election. These criminal activities were not initiated by PTP or any participating parties. Therefore he has no legitimacy to say the election is not free and fair during the interview. Also, AV has no legitimacy to talk about wasting Bt3 billion during the interview - because he has been silent on these criminal activities.

6. Not deferring the election was not the decision of the Government. The government brought in all the contesting parties and they did not want a deferment. Why should these parties submit to the demand of the dem. It is not the only party in Thailand.

7. PM YS did not refuse the deferment of election. It was the collective decision of the government and EC. No party was enable to guarantee that violence scare, mongered by EC, will stop and that all party will accept a new election date. Furthermore, no one was able to guarantee that there will be no legal action taken against the Government and EC.

8. When did PM YS's refused to accept a verdict of the Constitutional court?

9. Who would be the people the society can trust to oversee the election after some initial reforms take place? Is the EC credibility questioned by him?

10. It is not true that PM YS had precondition. It was the dem and its PDRC/PCAD - reform before election and an unelected 'people council' to run the country. PM YS did say 'we can't discuss the election postponement' - That was before CC said the election could be postponed if both side agreed. She could not discuss the government's caretaker status before it was mandated according to Royal Decree and Constitution.

11. AV also accused during interview: "the government of majority doesn't attend Parliament, doesn't answer questions in the House, is not accountable, puts itself above the law and doesn't accept court verdicts." When did all these happen? It was the dem who walked out of parliament, threatened the speaker, physical assault in parliament and parliamentary hooliganism.

12. When did Yingluck government said people in areas who didn't vote for her would not get development or budget funds, or their projects were cancelled?

13 AV said "There is, but the prime minister has to take that first step of admitting that this election is getting us to nowhere, that there need to be talks, a postponement, and that she might have to step aside so that people have faith in a free and fair election." Why should the government do that? Free and fair election is the job of EC? Is he discrediting the EC again? Why can't he just join the election and at the same time make sure that it is free and fair like what PTP and all participating parties did?

14. Interviewer :What will you do if you return to lead the country?
AV replied : "I will have to push forward reform that is very much needed right now to get rid of corruption and move the country forward so that we can actually fulfil our economic potential." Did he push for reform when he was the leader of dem led government? Did he get rid of corruption during his term? What had he done to GET RID of corruption? Why he rejected reform initiatives when it was called months before his demand of house dissolution?

15. He talked about rule of law: He forgot that the administration and enforcement of rule of law equally without fear and favour are the responsibility of the courts and enforcement agencies - not street mobs and thugs. Not smear, misinformation and distortion campaigns. Not denigrating the people. Certainly not behavior like using fake document to avoid a mandatory military service, refusing to sign a bail condition like everyone has to.

In conclusion : He is trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself, the dem and Thailand using lies, misinformation, distortion and untruth.

Edited February 7, 2014 by icommunity

[Just1Voice]

For those like lostmebike, who are always demanding "proof", instead of sitting at the head of the table like Lord of the Manor waiting for the serfs to bring your dinner, why don't you try the wonderful inventions of the Internet and Google. There you can find all the "proof" you could ever want or ask for.

While I admit that the Dems may not be as guilty as PTP in regards to corruption, believe me, they are in the Corruption Pool up to their necks. Corruption and politics have gone hand in hand for ALL parties since the overthrow of Absolute Monarchy.

So, don't just sit there on your ass and demand that others provide the proof for you, try doing a bit of research (as has been suggested) and you can find all the proof you want.

[skorchio]

Whether I am reading this crap from Havash1t or another flavour of crap from Duckie, I always find myself asking of this muppet politics, is there not one good man or woman out there, one strong character with the desire to actually make it better? Amidst all the mud-slinging, waffle and corruption from both parties in the political divide, surely there is one good man or woman with the strength and resolve and the right ideas to DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THAILAND. Surely the people would recognise this and vote accordingly, if this one good person actually existed and stood up and made themselves heard.

Where is this one good person?

[rixalex]

Yes about Thailand, but AV is seriously down and out in unprecedented ways - failing to support, defend, promote democracy.

And my central point is that AV is on Bloomberg TV and likely is in the early stages of a media campaign because it's world opinion that he's lost, that has turned against him and done it for good.

But world opinion doesn't make or break a Thai politician. If it did, how many would there be left? And at the end of the day, other nations are most concerned about looking after their own interests, so, in the unlikely event of Abhisit being again in a position of real power here, other nations would accept it and accept him, just as they have accepted other Thai leaders of equal or worse international standing.

[tingtongfarang]

Whether I am reading this crap from Havash1t or another flavour of crap from Duckie, I always find myself asking of this muppet politics, is there not one good man or woman out there, one strong character with the desire to actually make it better? Amidst all the mud-slinging, waffle and corruption from both parties in the political divide, surely there is one good man or woman with the strength and resolve and the right ideas to DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THAILAND. Surely the people would recognise this and vote accordingly, if this one good person actually existed and stood up and made themselves heard.

Where is this one good person?

I believe such people exist but that would mean swimming with the sharks, we can only hope these people begin to become visible after reform.

[rixalex]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

[Maggusoil]

As rich a vein of hypocrisy as you're ever likely to find. 'We support free and fair elections' says the guy who boycotted an election and whose associates did their best to prevent people from voting in a free and fair manner. A valuable insight into the thinking of a hypocrite.

He should not be allowed to be involved in anything remotely connected to politics in this country ever again along with many of his cronies.

Incredible bunch of hypocrites. I would love to have sen a real " hard talk" type of interview, he would have been ripped apart.

That would require the third pillar of democracy, complete freedom of speech and freedom of the press rather than advertising and spin doctoring.

[falangadang]

He had a chance before. He is a pussy cat.

He "was" a pussycat. A complete greenhorn to government and top level politics but since then has had his baptism of fire and has learned much.

IMHO he is about the best shot Thailand has at having a good, strong and internationally capable and respected leader!

[Scamper]

Terrific interview. Abhisit answers all the questions with directness and credibility. And he has the facts behind him, as well. Yingluck's interviews are an embarrassment, not because her English isn't as fluent. It's because she lives in a bubble of hollow sound bites that have no reality to things on the ground. Abhisit has many tough and direct questions directed to him in this interview, as should be the case. When Yingluck address similarly hard questions, her scripted answers actually don't match the question. When the interviewer repeats the question, she does the same thing. Finally, the interviewer gives up. That's the difference between the two.

[Maggusoil]

We need a politician in Thailand who doesn't have a "past" that could embarrass him/ or her. Otherwise, who is going to open the ledgers and create transparency.

What this is all about always comes back to Y Shinawatra clans attempt to create an amnesty, for all the mishaps and corruption.

Everybody knows it.

[bigbamboo]

He had a chance before. He is a pussy cat.

I'm afraid I have to agree with that. He's honest and articulate, a rarity in Thai politics, but a tough Geordie he isn't.

[aussieinthailand]

I despair at the blatant one-sided comments from those who are opposed to Abhisit (or indeed, anything Abhisit, Suthep or Democrat related), despite the fact that he put forward some very clear, articulate and sensible arguments (unlike the dear lady's miserable attempt on Al Jazeerah).

I have no doubt that if someone like Chalerm had put forward similar suggestions for improving democracy in the country, he would have been hailed as a visionary.

You show yourselves to be what you have always been, totally and utterly biased to the core.

" I despair at the blatant one-sided comments from those who are opposed to Abhist (or indeed, anything Suthep or Democrats related),"

Really?

• So you support Suthep's command to detain (kidnap) the care taker PM and her ministers and they should make arrangements for their families in case of trouble?
• You support the threats to Yingluk and her son to get out of Thailand?
• you support the beatings of taxi drivers and anyone that dose not agree with Suthep and his idea's?
• You support the threats and blockading of voting poll's and blocking people to exercise their lawful rights to vote?
• You support Suthep 's next tactic of raiding the rice mills and selling off rice to whom ever?
• You support Mark saying that the government dose not want to talk when clearly on many occasions that talks have been offered and rejected?
• Mark himself has said that reforms can not be completed before elections.
• YES reforms are needed, but a care taking government CAN NOT implement legislation, reforms, therefor elections.
• simple really.

[Spalpeen]

Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

.

It's beyond doubt that the PDRC are nothing more than a tissue thin cover for the Democrat party, just a way to insulate the Dems from future court cases. (Let's save some time here...."Where's yer proof" holler the tin hat brigade!)

But there's a wider lesson to be learned from both the Northern Ireland and South African conflicts. Resolution of both conflicts involved across the board amnesties for previous crimes and a truth and reconciliation process. People need to get it through their heads that a resolution of the present crisis will inevitably involve an amnesty for the main players. People like Abhisit, Suthep and Thaksin never do jail time.

[fab4]

It's time for reform why can't the govrnment accept that... Says the man who wants to reform the reforms he made when in government....

"What have I done wrong? I respect the law. I respect the Constitution. I am exercising my rights." err... I know innocent until proven guilty but.. murder?

Question! Do you actually think that Abhisit is guilty of murder? As in he told the troops to shoot to kill!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

Orders were issued to issue live ammunition and for it's use under certain conditions. These orders were signed by suthep as Head of CRES, and autthorised by abhisit as the ultimate"Boss" of CRES.

The case before the courts is whether these orders (ROE) and the subsequent reissue of Rules of Engagement were proportionate in response to the "threat" faced. Many would argue that the establishment of "Live Fire Zones" and the deployment of snipers were most definitely NOT proportionate to the "threat" faced.

The CRES set out rules of engagement, permitting security forces to use live ammunition as warning shots to deter protesters from moving closer; for self-defense; and when troops had clear visuals of "terrorists," a term the government failed to define. In reality, the military deployed snipers to shoot anyone who breached "no-go" zones between the UDD and army barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. Sometimes soldiers also shot into crowds of protesters. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/thailand

[Alwyn]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

You're making assumptions.. "The likelihood surely..." You then go on to speak for everyone which is nice of you. Maybe this will help you?

The CRES set out rules of engagement, permitting security forces to use live ammunition as warning shots to deter protesters from moving closer; for self-defense; and when troops had clear visuals of "terrorists," a term the government failed to define. In reality, the military deployed snipers to shoot anyone who breached "no-go" zones between the UDD and army barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. Sometimes soldiers also shot into crowds of protesters. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/thailand

Edited February 7, 2014 by Alwyn

[mimithewoof]

At last .... !!!

This interview will help the international media realize that in Abisit they have someone who can actually make a complete sentence and speak intelligently abut Thai politics.

This will be the first of many interviews.

Just because the man was born in England, attended Eton and Oxford, (the breeding grounds of Britain's very own corrupt hi-so elite) and can communicate spin in English doesn't mean he's the messiah!

Get real.

[yourauntbob]

A load of hypocritical rubbish from a seemingly intelligent guy.

The unasked question was how can the Democrat Party, who themselves are mired in massive crony corruption and vote-buying, be trusted to do anything about corruption when their noses are in the trough once again? They have done nothing about it previously, so why suddenly now?

well said, could not have put it better myself

[rixalex]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

You're making assumptions.. "The likelihood surely..." You then go on to speak for everyone which is nice of you.

Saying what I think is likely isn't making an assumption.

And yes, i do feel I'm speaking for everyone - everyone rational minded anyway. Can't of course speak for the red extremists. Plenty here though that clearly can and indeed are.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kingalfred]

As usual, he is lying, twisting and distorting.

1. Dissolving the house was demanded by him and when that happened, he boycotted it.

2. Reform initiatives were called by PM YS long before the house dissolved. The dem boycotted it and went round the country criticizing the government's initiatives. What had they come out with for reform? They cannot even accept the reforming of their own party.

3. Where are the protesters now. There was no crackdown that caused them to go home - unlike the 2010.

4. Free and fair election - I think it is the job of EC.

5. The dem had never come out to condemn the criminal activities of blocking election registration centres, blocking the distribution of ballot boxes and papers, the use of physical violence to block voters from voting and threats issued by its PDRC/PCAD to block election. These criminal activities were not initiated by PTP or any participating parties. Therefore he has no legitimacy to say the election is not free and fair during the interview. Also, AV has no legitimacy to talk about wasting Bt3 billion during the interview - because he has been silent on these criminal activities.

6. Not deferring the election was not the decision of the Government. The government brought in all the contesting parties and they did not want a deferment. Why should these parties submit to the demand of the dem. It is not the only party in Thailand.

7. PM YS did not refuse the deferment of election. It was the collective decision of the government and EC. No party was enable to guarantee that violence scare, mongered by EC, will stop and that all party will accept a new election date. Furthermore, no one was able to guarantee that there will be no legal action taken against the Government and EC.

8. When did PM YS's refused to accept a verdict of the Constitutional court?

9. Who would be the people the society can trust to oversee the election after some initial reforms take place? Is the EC credibility questioned by him?

10. It is not true that PM YS had precondition. It was the dem and its PDRC/PCAD - reform before election and an unelected 'people council' to run the country. PM YS did say 'we can't discuss the election postponement' - That was before CC said the election could be postponed if both side agreed. She could not discuss the government's caretaker status before it was mandated according to Royal Decree and Constitution.

11. AV also accused during interview: "the government of majority doesn't attend Parliament, doesn't answer questions in the House, is not accountable, puts itself above the law and doesn't accept court verdicts." When did all these happen? It was the dem who walked out of parliament, threatened the speaker, physical assault in parliament and parliamentary hooliganism.

12. When did Yingluck government said people in areas who didn't vote for her would not get development or budget funds, or their projects were cancelled?

13 AV said "There is, but the prime minister has to take that first step of admitting that this election is getting us to nowhere, that there need to be talks, a postponement, and that she might have to step aside so that people have faith in a free and fair election." Why should the government do that? Free and fair election is the job of EC? Is he discrediting the EC again? Why can't he just join the election and at the same time make sure that it is free and fair like what PTP and all participating parties did?

14. Interviewer :What will you do if you return to lead the country?

AV replied : "I will have to push forward reform that is very much needed right now to get rid of corruption and move the country forward so that we can actually fulfil our economic potential." Did he push for reform when he was the leader of dem led government? Did he get rid of corruption during his term? What had he done to GET RID of corruption? Why he rejected reform initiatives when it was called months before his demand of house dissolution?

15. He talked about rule of law: He forgot that the administration and enforcement of rule of law equally without fear and favour are the responsibility of the courts and enforcement agencies - not street mobs and thugs. Not smear, misinformation and distortion campaigns. Not denigrating the people. Certainly not behavior like using fake document to avoid a mandatory military service, refusing to sign a bail condition like everyone has to.

In conclusion : He is trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself, the dem and Thailand using lies, misinformation, distortion and untruth.

Well Well .that took some dreaming up .you should write fantasy books or maybe manifestos for Poo Thai

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited February 7, 2014 by kingalfred

[Bluespunk]

Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

.

It's beyond doubt that the PDRC are nothing more than a tissue thin cover for the Democrat party, just a way to insulate the Dems from future court cases. (Let's save some time here...."Where's yer proof" holler the tin hat brigade!)

But there's a wider lesson to be learned from both the Northern Ireland and South African conflicts. Resolution of both conflicts involved across the board amnesties for previous crimes and a truth and reconciliation process. People need to get it through their heads that a resolution of the present crisis will inevitably involve an amnesty for the main players. People like Abhisit, Suthep and Thaksin never do jail time.

PDRC and dems are not the same. Just accept it and move on.

There is a need for some sort of truth commission here but PT cannot be in charge of it or set the conditions, which is what they did on their so called reform proposals. Neither can suthep or any other political figure involved establishing the basis for this process. There needs to be an outside mediator, such as ASEAN or UN reps. Thing is, will Thailand accept this.

Also those who have committed criminal cases such as fraud for personal gain [or any criminal activity for personal gain] cannot be included in any such committee unless it can be proven that the charges against them are political in basis and have no truth to them.

No blanket amnesties, case by case process needs to be followed. Criminals go to gaol if it is proven that they abused their position for personal gain.

[aimbc]

I noticed one thing with the Red Shirts supporter, is their failure to admit to the problem. Denial would be the word. They would rather patch up the system and keep on driving with it, hoping to reach the destination. But I must say, they are good at distraction techniques by bring out off the wall subject. Let's stick with the subject of YS administrative roles. The issue is their lack of accountability and responsibility for their actions. We can't solve the problem if we don't admit to it.

[Spalpeen]

Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

.

It's beyond doubt that the PDRC are nothing more than a tissue thin cover for the Democrat party, just a way to insulate the Dems from future court cases. (Let's save some time here...."Where's yer proof" holler the tin hat brigade!)

But there's a wider lesson to be learned from both the Northern Ireland and South African conflicts. Resolution of both conflicts involved across the board amnesties for previous crimes and a truth and reconciliation process. People need to get it through their heads that a resolution of the present crisis will inevitably involve an amnesty for the main players. People like Abhisit, Suthep and Thaksin never do jail time.

PDRC and dems are not the same. Just accept it and move on.

.

Nothing escapes this guy!

[Alwyn]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

You're making assumptions.. "The likelihood surely..." You then go on to speak for everyone which is nice of you.

Saying what I think is likely isn't making an assumption.

And yes, i do feel I'm speaking for everyone - everyone rational minded anyway. Can't of course speak for the red extremists. Plenty here though that clearly can and indeed are.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So if people don't agree with you, they're not rational? You have a high opinion of yourself

[fab4]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

You're making assumptions.. "The likelihood surely..." You then go on to speak for everyone which is nice of you.

Saying what I think is likely isn't making an assumption.

And yes, i do feel I'm speaking for everyone - everyone rational minded anyway. Can't of course speak for the red extremists. Plenty here though that clearly can and indeed are.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place."

That would include the Attorney General and the Courts themselves for having accepted this case in the first place, by your reckoning.

Why can you not, at the very least, acknowledge that the very act of establishing live fire zones and deploying snipers under the express authority of CRES i.e.abhisit and suthep, was NOT proportionate to the "threat" presented (if there was one). Hopefully the Courts will rule on this.

If this was a valid method of crowd control in an established democracy surely this would have been carried out by other countries?

Edited February 7, 2014 by fab4

[Alwyn]

That's a fair question. IF he told the troops to shoot then yes, he is guilty. Did he tell the troops to shoot? I guess that's going to come out when it gets to court. He's saying the accusations are politically driven, exactly the same as Thaksin says about his charges and convictions. I only really believe things I see with my own eyes when it comes to most things. It's kind of clear that I couldn't of been there to see the goings on so I don't know yes or no. Somebody told them to open fire though

It's not as simple as "were they told to shoot", it's about under what circumstances they were told they could shoot. The likelihood is surely that they were told that if they were under deadly attack, they could return fire to protect themselves. Does anyone seriously think that the order was to indiscriminately fire at innocent people? Of course not.

And with regards the court case, the fact that they are trying to try Abhisit in a personal capacity of murder, demonstrates what a joke it all is. It was done in a blatant attempt to apply pressure on him and Suthep to agree on the white wash plan. Now that the white wash plan has for the moment failed, this court case going forward has no purpose, and only threatens to make a fool of those who pushed it in the first place.

You're making assumptions.. "The likelihood surely..." You then go on to speak for everyone which is nice of you.

Saying what I think is likely isn't making an assumption.

And yes, i do feel I'm speaking for everyone - everyone rational minded anyway. Can't of course speak for the red extremists. Plenty here though that clearly can and indeed are.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rational people will most likely consider this without being so full of themselves they consider anyone not agreeing with their point of view is irrational

The CRES set out rules of engagement, permitting security forces to use live ammunition as warning shots to deter protesters from moving closer; for self-defense; and when troops had clear visuals of "terrorists," a term the government failed to define. In reality, the military deployed snipers to shoot anyone who breached "no-go" zones between the UDD and army barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. Sometimes soldiers also shot into crowds of protesters. http://www.hrw.org/w...t-2011/thailand

[virtualtraveller]

Whatever the half truths and political spin, Abhisit always comes out sounding far more sensible, intelligent, composed and sincere that almost any other politician interviewed in English. Compared to Yingluck and Thaksin he wins hands down. Of course there are extenuating circumstances and justifications to whatever either side says.

I felt that this interviewer, Hasalinda had a combative agenda, couldn't help thinking she saw the whole situation as 'Democrats can't win election so boycott' and accusing them of spoil sports, indicating she is a poor journalist who hasn't done her homework !